In all seriousness, who the fuck gives a damn what the Extra Credits guy thinks? Of course he's going to say "Oh Games are art! You don't control the narrative" because he's all artsy fartsy and pretentious... well hell, that his gimmick, and he does it well and it's entertaining.

That said, fans were sold a bill of goods with the first two games and left with a flat ending. I understand why they're pissed, this isn't like being angry about the Star Wars movies. Going to see those flicks in the theater cost what? An hour of your time and ten dollars?

These games run 60 dollars and require a serious investment of time, so it is perfectly reasonable to be pissed over the lame ending because it generally feels like Bioware just decided to phone it in. It's not just the fact the ending was three flavors of vanilla, or that we don't get a New Vegas style epilogue. I could accept that, it's that Joker and the FUCKING CREW THAT WAS WITH YOU DOWN ON THE PLANET SUDDENLY BREAK REALITY AND THEIR CHARACTER BIBLES AND FLEE!

Now re-writing the ending? It wouldn't break an artist "integrity" because, hey speaking as an artist, the whole point is to manipulate people to get a reaction out of them you desire. So unless Bioware's whole goal was to seriously piss everyone off, they FAILED as artist.

SaneAmongInsane:I'm surprised he didn't support the idea of a kick-starter page to get a new ending made. Then once they had enough money, and keep the extra.

They also offered to refund anyone who gave it to them, outlined a specific plan for it related to their purview and, most importantly, didn't tell people to give over the requested amount in the first fucking place. So yeah, full story.

It was a tongueNcheek joke dude. But they did go ahead and run away crying from Escapist and the fanbase here. So screw 'em. #Offtopic

You know what? You're probably right about that. But doesn't that make Bioware something of an underdog?

I don't think any of us (who weren't born with fetal alcohol syndrome) really believe that Bioware made that ending just to say, "Haha, take that, fuckwads!" If you have a grievance, by all means say so. But assuming that Bioware release a DLC to alter the ending, would it be so bad if they simply tied up the loose ends, provided closure and otherwise stuck to their guns?

That's all I want out of a DLC. I think it'd be cool if they added more content after the end, and personally I like the indoctrination theory and would like to see Bioware latch onto that.

But... if the content only cleared up some loose ends and add closure, I'd be more than OK with that.

Gigatoast:I'm very disappointed in EC for falling into that tired 'artistic integrity' bulls**t. It doesn't apply to a commercial product, and it does not justify a failure to meet the promises made before release, and Bioware will not set a 'dangerous precedent' by fixing their crass mistake, end of story.

Technically, all Dan said was that if Bioware want to add an addendum for closure, they're free to do so. He just hopes that if they do so, they stand by their decision not to go with a more predictable sort of ending. What's so disagreeable about that?

Well because Mass Effect 3's ending isn't a subjective thing, it is fundamentally flawed in a multitude of ways and the entire series suffers from it's existence. And that's not just me talking out of my ass either, you know we've all poured hundreds more man-hours into explaining exactly why the ending doesn't work then Bioware's writers (or singular writer, if the rumors are true) spent conceiving the thing in the first place.

I'm not sure, but I don't think Dan addresses the fact that (yes I have to bring this up) Bioware promised they wouldn't pull this kind of thing weeks before launch, knowing full well that what they where saying was completely inaccurate and misleading. That's a manipulation and abuse of their fanbase that puts an ugly stain not only on the company, but also on the industry as a whole.

Hiding behind the impenetrable umbrella of "artistic integrity" in order to defend it is an insult to art itself. Does this mean studios now have the right to cut corners where ever they want and claim it was an artistic choice? That's a much more dangerous precedent because then the consumer no longer has a say in the product they are sold.

And this is fairly subjective, but the 'pseudo-philosophical twist ending' isn't really a creative risk, nowadays it's just a predictable as a happy ending. Funneling all your choices into a single outcome wasn't a decision made for the sake of art or originality, it was made because the alternative (which I remind you was Bioware's promised goal) was to make a multitude of different endings based on the player's decisions, some happy, some sad, some tragic. Anything less is a complete betrayal of the series' key themes and selling points, not to mention a betrayal of Bioware's fanbase.

What all these critics and internet personalities don't seem to grasp is that this was never the intended ending to the series, it only exists because someone ran out of time/money or someone got lazy. This isn't a case of fans simply demanding a different ending, this is a case of a studio being pushed to accomplish what they had actually set out to do.

Again with the games are art crap, I liked EC but god did that artsy stuff get old.

Games, sold for profit, with the intention of selling them for profit during creation, are a product first and art second, as such they should cater to the customer first, and then artistic vision second.

When Bioware starts producing games for free, then they can have all the artistic freedom they want.

While I respect EC's opinion, one cannot deny the fact that Bioware promised "16 different endings". The fact that we essentially received 3 variation on the same one is at the core of why people are upset.

Hammartroll:Not-for-profit games are what I would call art; designed not for profit but to convey and idea. When you put a price on it, it becomes a buisness and must adhere to the rules of one. Bioware is a buisness and should act like one.

DrVornoff:So it stops being art when you're no longer doing it pro bono? I don't follow.

First off, the fundamental problem with this arguement is that the term "art" is so vague that none of what we're talking about can be considered fact, but what I know is fact is basic economic rules.

If I decide to shit in my hands and make a sculpture out of it and then decide to show it off at an art gallery then fine, some people may consider it art, some people may think it's just a piece of shit. And I think that's a debate totally worth having, since what we consider to be art is mostly subjective.

BUT!!!

When I try peddle my shit statue and no one wants to buy it, I HAVE NO RIGHT to go calling people narrow minded for not wanting to buy something that I think is a work of art. When I put my art on the market it no longer matters what I think of it, all that matters is if people like it enough and in the free market THE PEOPLE ARE NEVER WRONG.

Bioware is looking to sell a product, that's their whole purpose. Sure it's good to have an artistic quality to your product, they usually sell better when they do, but only if it's an artistic quality that people are willing to accept, otherwise it won't sell. It baffles me how some people can be so arrogant as to think the Bioware developers should be scolding it's consumers when it's the cosumers who are the ones who allows Bioware to exist.

IT'S OUR MONEY AND WE WILL PAY FOR WHAT WE WANT. it's Bioware's job to provide that, and the excuse that a lame ass product they put out should still be bought and infact admired because they deemed it a work of art is just that, a sorry excuse.

And I havn't played Mass Effect 3 so I can't say how bad it was, but the economics concept still applies, the consumers are obviously unhappy with this product.

Yeah, how DARE game critics want to treat games as a true art form? Shame on them for trying to treat the medium with a little bit of respect.

Just because something is art doesn't mean it can't be changed or judged. Even the greatest artists changed their art to satisfy the person paying for it, but nobody says those are suddenly not art because they have no integrity. For an example, I think someone mentioned the pope demanding several changes to the Sistene Chapel Cieling. I also really doubt that leanardo Davinci never changed any of his works to suit the person paying. Do I think the ME3 ending is bad? Yes. Do I think it should be changed to something that isn't bad? Yes. Will I demand it be changed? Okay that's where I stop, I'm not going that far, admittedly. If they really don't want to change it that's there decision and I will respect it, but I will never believe that changing something destroys its value as art. It sometimes can, but I don't think this is one of those intances.

Gigatoast:Well because Mass Effect 3's ending isn't a subjective thing, it is fundamentally flawed in a multitude of ways and the entire series suffers from it's existence. And that's not just me talking out of my ass either, you know we've all poured hundreds more man-hours into explaining exactly why the ending doesn't work then Bioware's writers (or singular writer, if the rumors are true) spent conceiving the thing in the first place.

Sometimes things just screw up. I'm aware of what was promised vs what was delivered. I understand why people are upset about that.

Here's my theory: what was promised was the original plan. For whatever reason, it never came together. The ending we got was made with the best of intentions, but it didn't work. I weigh consequences separately from intent. And I generally try to give artists and their teams the benefit of the doubt because I've been there. No one gives you a bad ending because fuck you. Sometimes things just screw up.

Would it be so bad to say that we didn't get a perfect ending, but if we're delivered the closure we wanted, then the developers at least made the most of an unfortunate situation?

Elate:When Bioware starts producing games for free, then they can have all the artistic freedom they want.

No, I don't buy that. The customer is not always right and an artist should not have to give away free shit to retain the right to stick to their guns.

Hammartroll:IT'S OUR MONEY AND WE WILL PAY FOR WHAT WE WANT. it's Bioware's job to provide that, and the excuse that a lame ass product they put out should still be bought and infact admired because they deemed it a work of art is just that, a sorry excuse.

I said no such thing. I simply object to the idea that the customer is always right. No, they're not. I've worked in customer service. Sometimes the customer is wrong. Sometimes the customer is a moron. Sometimes the customer needs a punch in the throat.

It is true that businesses are not entitled to a profit. But the customer is not infallible either. If the artist creates something and it doesn't sell, that's too bad. If they have the capital, they're welcome to try again. But if the customer decides to be unreasonable, then the artist, like any other entrepreneur is entitled to tell them to fuck off.

Yeah, how DARE game critics want to treat games as a true art form? Shame on them for trying to treat the medium with a little bit of respect.

I'll believe the ending was an artistic choice rather than a blunder as soon as they explain what they were aiming for artistically, and I can judge whether it was a) an artistic choice, 2) a good artistic choice, and 3) whether they succeeded in achieving that vision.

Overall, this article makes a lot of good points. I wholeheartedly agree that if there's one thing this ending does, it's that it drives home how excellent the rest of the game and series were, that it elicits this much investment (and, as some would argue, the glaring shift from that quality the ending represents).

Here's the question I have about artistic integrity: Assuming the finished project does NOT sufficiently execute the artistic vision, what is better - a) to leave the ending unchanged, or b) change it in such a way where the quality is dramatically improved and it executes the original artistic vision? Would choosing the latter option compromise artistic integrity?

In other words, IF BioWare never intended this, and IF they feel that they themselves don't like the ending, would it artistically improper for them to produce an 'ending supplement'? (Imagine, for this, that fan reaction doesn't enter in to the question - I agree, bowing to popular outrage just because it is popular outrage is wrong, but assuming that wasn't a factor.)

Elate:When Bioware starts producing games for free, then they can have all the artistic freedom they want.

No, I don't buy that. The customer is not always right and an artist should not have to give away free shit to retain the right to stick to their guns.

Ok, then they aren't artists. They're making something with the intent on selling it, that's a product not art.

As I said in another thread, if a meal I order comes with the wrong sauce, I have a right to complain and get it changed, because that chef (who some believe to be an artform) messed up what he said he was going to make. He doesn't turn around and go "NO YOU CANNOT, IT IS ART, YOU EAT IT AS IT IS" that's just ridiculous.

survivor686:While I respect EC's opinion, one cannot deny the fact that Bioware promised "16 different endings". The fact that we essentially received 3 variation on the same one is at the core of why people are upset.

*nods*

I love the fact, though, that essentially everyone in the gaming industry defends Bioware by every means that's available to them without addressing the core issues that the players/fans have brought forth.

The sad thing about all of this is that I remember playing Star Ocean 2 and that had...what...86 or 87 different endings? Hell, even Chrono Trigger pulled the multiple endings off better and it had only....ehhhh 10ish?

I think it's safe to say, given all the reactions from the different gaming sites and sources, that no one in the industry is willing to confront the issues that were raised; either for their own sake or for the industry's. Make no mistake about it, I agree with the fans that they were cheated in what they were given in the game story-wise, but I also agree with Bioware's decision on what they put forth in the game. It's just that decision by Bioware results in me using my money in a different manner than before ME3 came out. I'm just glad I have a brother that I can borrow games from!

Jodah:So, I have a question for the "games are art" folks out there. Let's say, just for a second, that games are art. Why then, are they the only form of art in the world that is immune to criticism? Nobody is forcing Bioware/EA to change the game. All people are doing is voicing their complaints, some better than others, but nobody has a gun to someone's head forcing them to change it.

Why then, is it a terrible strike against artistic integrity when gamers say "No, this is shit. You should change it" but it isn't when someone says it about a painting or music?

It isn't immune to criticism anymore than books and movies are. You are perfectly allowed to say "I really didn't like the way you did this ending, I think you could have handled it better."

However you are not allowed to demand them to change it after the work has been released- if they ask you for your opinion before the product is released, you can tell them that they should change it- they are asking you to take part in their artistic vision. After the piece is released, everybody else is not taking part in developing it- they are experiencing it. There's a bit of a difference. As far as I know, there hasn't been anyone that had DEMANDED an ending be wholly rewritten after the piece has been released in any medium aside from video games.

But see most of the people who say they want a "new ending" or want it changed would be happy with an indoctrination theory style ending. Keep the old ending as a basis to build from. And that has happened before with Sherlock Holmes and countless character resurrections from other series.

Elate:Ok, then they aren't artists. They're making something with the intent on selling it, that's a product not art.

Do you really believe that they're mutually exclusive?

As I said in another thread, if a meal I order comes with the wrong sauce, I have a right to complain and get it changed, because that chef (who some believe to be an artform) messed up what he said he was going to make. He doesn't turn around and go "NO YOU CANNOT, IT IS ART, YOU EAT IT AS IT IS" that's just ridiculous.

That was a stretch.

The recent remake of Black Christmas was advertised with a trailer that was made up entirely of shots that didn't actually appear in the movie. The movie itself was pretty awful too. But nobody filed a lawsuit with the FTC. They still left the theater having bought the ticket, older and hopefully a little wiser. Caveat emptor. As terrible as the movie was, no one was obligated to recut it in an attempt to make it less awful. Just as I had the right to refuse to buy a ticket or buy it on DVD.

This fallacy that all art is created equal and that art and business are mutually exclusive really needs to stop.

And I'm guessing they didn't pay £40 for one movie ticket either. I don't care whether it gets redone or not, frankly I hope not, because it would be a disappoint for bioware to cave like that. I'm just saying that people do have a right to complain about it, and I'm fed up of that argument being beaten down by it being considered "art".

Sometimes things just screw up. I'm aware of what was promised vs what was delivered. I understand why people are upset about that.

Here's my theory: what was promised was the original plan. For whatever reason, it never came together. The ending we got was made with the best of intentions, but it didn't work. I weigh consequences separately from intent. And I generally try to give artists and their teams the benefit of the doubt because I've been there. No one gives you a bad ending because fuck you. Sometimes things just screw up.

Would it be so bad to say that we didn't get a perfect ending, but if we're delivered the closure we wanted, then the developers at least made the most of an unfortunate situation?

There's definitely a whole lot we don't know about what went down at Bioware, it's pretty safe to assume they didn't try to screw up this bad. But the thing is, some of those developer promises are from this year, they where made after the game was already complete and the reps from Bioware knew what they created wouldn't deliver on both the customer's expectations and their own claims. That's where the ordeal goes from unfortunate to suspicious, and it's generated quite a bit of mistrust.

And while expansion is all well and good, the problem me and a lot of other people have with the ending is how it completely obliterates any possibility of closure. Everything you worked to achieve is undone in an instant and there really isn't much you can explain beyond that.

Basically the point is that Mass Effect 1-3 have choices have actual consequence which all don't impact the ending at all in how the story ends. Player choice was offered across all 3 games and then taken away at the last minute... and all you said was "artistic integrety"?

"We are the players and this is how we tell our story" is what Mass Effect has given us and I'll be very damn sad if I couldn't just attempt to board a reaper or use the Catalyst to lure them away and then use it as a bomb (even if it is stupid) opposed to the forced "choice" of blowing up the entire galaxy with the Mass Relays.

Elate:Ok, then they aren't artists. They're making something with the intent on selling it, that's a product not art.

Do you really believe that they're mutually exclusive?

As I said in another thread, if a meal I order comes with the wrong sauce, I have a right to complain and get it changed, because that chef (who some believe to be an artform) messed up what he said he was going to make. He doesn't turn around and go "NO YOU CANNOT, IT IS ART, YOU EAT IT AS IT IS" that's just ridiculous.

That was a stretch.

The recent remake of Black Christmas was advertised with a trailer that was made up entirely of shots that didn't actually appear in the movie. The movie itself was pretty awful too. But nobody filed a lawsuit with the FTC. They still left the theater having bought the ticket, older and hopefully a little wiser. Caveat emptor. As terrible as the movie was, no one was obligated to recut it in an attempt to make it less awful. Just as I had the right to refuse to buy a ticket or buy it on DVD.

This fallacy that all art is created equal and that art and business are mutually exclusive really needs to stop.

How sure are you that noone filed a complaint with the FTC? Hell, if the person who filed a complaint with the FTC towards ME3 didn't make a thread about it on the BSN, you wouldn't have even known. The FTC doesn't publicly list what grievances have been brought against companies.

(Seriously though, I disagree. I knew EC would role out the pretentious artistic vision shit.)

Why? Why do you have a problem with them defending Bioware making a choice as a group of artists to realize their artistic vision? I'm sorry, but that's idiotic. You're attacking the idea of art because....it's art and therefore you think it's pretentious? Pro tip buddy, in a work of art every single element is a diliberate artistic choice. They chose the ending to be a certain way, and they have the right as a team of artists to make that choice in their work of art. Once you leave art aside and cave into the "der her i didnt lik it chnge it cuz im a winey fanboi" bullshit it's not art anymore. It's the third Transformers movie.

[Not in response to above comment] I haven't played Mass Effect 3 yet so I have no idea what the ending is, but seriously folks. It's an ending. They made an artistic choice. You didn't like it. Deal with it.

And I'm guessing they didn't pay £40 for one movie ticket either. I don't care whether it gets redone or not, frankly I hope not, because it would be a disappoint for bioware to cave like that. I'm just saying that people do have a right to complain about it, and I'm fed up of that argument being beaten down by it being considered "art".

Never said you didn't have the right. But there comes a point where it's no longer airing a grievance and becomes more about being addicted to your story. People get a secondary emotional payoff from being the victims in an equation, and after a while it just kind of ruins your outlook. I speak from experience.

So yeah, speak your mind. But, you know... don't go overboard. Make too many demands, and you'll get none of them.

Gigatoast:There's definitely a whole lot we don't know about what went down at Bioware, it's pretty safe to assume they didn't try to screw up this bad. But the thing is, some of those developer promises are from this year, they where made after the game was already complete and the reps from Bioware knew what they created wouldn't deliver on both the customer's expectations and their own claims. That's where the ordeal goes from unfortunate to suspicious, and it's generated quite a bit of mistrust.

And while expansion is all well and good, the problem me and a lot of other people have with the ending is how it completely obliterates any possibility of closure. Everything you worked to achieve is undone in an instant and there really isn't much you can explain beyond that.

Can't help you there. I've said my piece.

Also, would you be surprised to learn there's an episode of "My Little Pony" that deals with that exact issue? Don't ask me how I know that.

Season 1, episode 14: Suited for Success. I have the whole series on my iTunes. Yes, I'm one of those people. ;)

wintercoat:How sure are you that noone filed a complaint with the FTC? Hell, if the person who filed a complaint with the FTC towards ME3 didn't make a thread about it on the BSN, you wouldn't have even known. The FTC doesn't publicly list what grievances have been brought against companies.

Perhaps. Though if someone did drink enough mercury to waste their time on such an endeavor, I can't imagine they got very far.

(Seriously though, I disagree. I knew EC would role out the pretentious artistic vision shit.)

Same here...their just repeating what so many others have brought up. I've lost respect for so many people these past few weeks it's really disheartening. It's not that they don't agree it's that they role out the same tired defenses.

Fawxy: Another question: how does Mass Effect 3 being "art" absolve it from criticism? Anyone care to explain this?

Quite simply, it doesn't. It's just that it's getting the wrong kind of critisism and people are badly over reacting. You can say "I didn't like that ending." Hell, you're probably well within your rights to call it a bad ending if you have good reason (I wouldn't know, I haven't played it). I take grievance with the people who seem to take an ending they dislike personally, like the artist went out of their way to flip them off with the ending.

The thing about an ending is that the artist is trying to say something with the ending. Every part of a work of art is, for better or worse, deliberate. It was a concious choice by the artist. You can't demand that an artist change their vision or say that their interpretation of their own work is wrong. And you certainly can't whine and bitch about how the artist "owes" you something, because they don't owe you shit. You chose to pay the amount of money you paid. You chose to invest the time you did. The artist doesn't owe you anything for choices that you made yourself. Whine and bitch about how you didn't like it all you please, just don't act like an entitled fuckwit.

Thoric485:Wow, i even read his posts in that annoying voice he uses in his videos.

Anyway, it's kind of funny that people are so outraged at the fans compromising BioWare's creative vision, but don't say a peep about EA's influence on the company. So BioWare are perfectly fine with having a 2 year development cycle, cutting up their games for DLC and inserting idiotic cameos, but this is what crosses the line?

EA are the frontmen of the games as a service idea, cutting corners for profit is their goddamn company policy. The work BioWare produce under them is not art, calling it art is an insult to every developer that invests genuine love and craftsmanship into their games.

Games as art? They can be I suppose. It's going to depend on a game by game basis. I would say Journey looks very artsy and supposedly moves the player to feel some emotion. Sounds like art to me. I haven't played ME3 but from what I have seen, it doesn't look like art to me.

I don't want to sound like a condescending dick, but I just don't understand why the gaming community was mostly willing to sit back and let EA pull the day 1 DLC fraud and then turn around and jump down Bioware's throat over a game ending? People fail sometimes. Bioware failed in delivering a stellar ending to ME3. Sometimes it's good to wait to buy a game to avoid being blindsided by such things.

That day 1 DLC, however, was malicious and unethical. It may have been a minor infraction but the significance was huge and unfortunately has been swept under the rug with all this ending talk. Unless Bioware invented time travel, that DLC is content removed from your game and sold on the side. They short changed you and then had the audacity to sell it back to you are a jacked up price.

The line has been crossed and tone has been set. This practice will continue and grow in scale. The fire has been started. Are we going to ignore it until our house burns down or are we going to snuff it out now?

"they made an artistic choice."All available evidence suggests they did not, two people slapped something together in the final moments. The ending was planned out on scrap paper by one guy. If that guy was the original lead and this vaguely resembled what they had planned then that is something more than nothing. But right now, there doesn't seem to be any vision of any kind.

Furthermore I do not understand why it being an "artistic choice" means they should ignore fans. I take it Fallout 3 isn't art, the Alex Rider book series isn't and so on. Or are these things are and being art and possessing some level of artistic vision doesn't mean they should ignore what fans want. Bioware has always been about trying to give fans what they want, doing so correctly or not they are trying. For them not to listen would be something new. Remember the Mako? An entire gameplay aspect, a full third of the games variety was removed because people did not like it. Or have we all agreed that gameplay isn't the product of any artistic vision?People are going overboard with their demands that Bioware fix the utterly broken ending, that is clearly true. But does that mean that Bioware should act differently and not listen?

People have every right to say "You promised us X, Y and Z and we got none of that. The ending is on every level broken. You should correct this mistake". Bioware listening to people and correcting their mistake isn't bad or new, not to art, not to games, not even to Bioware.

EDIT: Because I like this video and feel and deserves more views, and it is on topic.

spoiler'd for those with slow 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

Books are generally considered Art, right?So in Germany there's a series of books called "The Dwarfs". The Author wrote 3 books and said that this series was finished after the third book.This caused an outcry among fans, because the third book ended on multiple Huge cliffhangers.So finally the author caved in and Wrote an ENTIRE 1000 PAGES BOOK, to wrap everything up and to give a clear ending.Are Books less Art, of course not.So what's your problem.

370999:But for me at least, Bioware hasn't surrendered their control of fans, they still as the ultimate determinant. But there is nothing to say they can't realize that they fucked up and say "we messed up and by using the unique advantages of this medium we are going to correct this mistake".

Therein lies part of the issue: BioWare isn't coming right out and saying "Yeah, we fucked up. Sorry." Instead, they're saying everything else and so you have threads like this.

I'm sure you already know this, but there's a fine difference between "promising closure" and openly admitting that good idea you had on paper didn't translate very well in application. From my own experience, people will have far more respect for you in the latter case than the former.

370999:Like to me, it's impossible for the Fans to make them change as the fandom simply doesn't have the ability to make demands. The best they can do is make requests.

I think we are pretty close honestly...

The news stories - hell, even some posts in this very thread - I've read definitely say otherwise. I'll kill it here since I feel we both have said too much on the subject already.

*clears throat* I have read their take on ME3's ending and I have prepared this reasonable and well thought out response.

I'm just kidding, I'm not even a ME fan so I haven't played any of the games in the trilogy. I did skim it though and from what I've read about the ending I have to say I agree with them on some points and disagree on others. From an outside perspective I think it's kind of a crappy ending to a trilogy. (Like Vader throwing Luke down the bottomless pit instead of the emperor crappy) To be honest it sounds like the lead into a fourth game where they retroactively figure out how to stop the reapers without fucking the galaxy and they have to go back...

BACK TO THE FUTURE!!!

(because you know ME takes place in the future so technically any backwards time travel is going back to the future and...I'm going to shut up now...)

You know, i respect your opinion, man, but there's no need to act belligerent toward everyone who doesn't agree with you.

OT: I like the EC guys, but there's a lot of stuff i don't agree with here. If all the internet rumors flying around are true (Wouldn't be surprised at this point) then it wasn't really an artistic choice, it was mostly just pushed out the door. However, the last full paragraph describes my thoughts:

If the "failure" of Mass Effect 3's final minutes has done anything, it has proven exactly how successful the rest of the trilogy was. That the ending's failure to provide closure made so many people so angry showcases just how invested we all are in this universe and these characters we've befriended (more than even Bioware expected, I imagine). That the ending both supports and conflicts with some of the game's themes draws attention to how thoroughly those themes were woven into the previous games. And picking apart the ending's flaws has ultimately led me to marvel at just how successful Mass Effect has been as a whole.

DrVornoff:I don't think any of us (who weren't born with fetal alcohol syndrome) really believe that Bioware made that ending just to say, "Haha, take that, fuckwads!" If you have a grievance, by all means say so. But assuming that Bioware release a DLC to alter the ending, would it be so bad if they simply tied up the loose ends, provided closure and otherwise stuck to their guns?

You know what I just thought of? BioWare said in the beginning that ME was supposed to be a trilogy of games, but I think after the first game they weren't entirely sure what to make each game about. Ergo, when everything comes to pass in ME3, they created these nigh invincible warbots with no forethought as to how you actually kill one (Sovereign's defeat back ion the first game still makes no sense to me), hence the central theme of the entire trilogy radically shifting gears in the last 20 or minutes of the game.

Really, the only thing about ME3 that makes me angry is the heaping pile of feces BioWare and EA like to call "Galaxy at War". Having actually played - and subsequently written off - the multiplayer mode, directly tying it to the campaign was a very bad decision in my eyes.

klaynexas3:i agree in that the ending should be changed in a way that doesn't change how bioware ended it. even if you don't want to call it an art form, it would be like if you wrote a story and someone came by, called it shit, then rewrote it. how would you feel?

and with the people talking about fallout 3, i found the ending to be a great ending. i was sad that i died, i hated it that it ended, but hey, i can go back and play the game differently this time. it was a well written ending, and was like a tragedy. i did like that i could keep playing after the new ending, but still, i feel that prevents it's ability to have any closure and have any effect on me. the ending was sad, i felt sad after it was done. but the game never shows themes for it being a happy game. you start out and your mom dies. later, your dad dies, not looking up too much for you. and you don't have to die, you can send in the paladin to do it instead of you, but it still ends. the game had an ending and brought it closure for what i did. it made me feel, that's why i liked it.

Fan's aren't re-writing it. Bioware would be the ones re-doing it. But yeah I agree with the ending of fallout 3, abrupt but... appropriate. I liked continuing the story and seeing first hand how my actions affected the wasteland. Plus a lot of people kinda meta-fictioned that the Wanderer from Vault 101 was their Courier in New Vegas. Cool idea actually.

RatRace123:EA likely doesn't give a shit about artistic integrity, and I highly doubt that Mass Effect 3 is the game that it is because EA respected Bioware's artistic vision. I'm still convinced that multiplayer was put in just so they could charge for an online pass.

You know what? You're probably right about that. But doesn't that make Bioware something of an underdog?

I don't think any of us (who weren't born with fetal alcohol syndrome) really believe that Bioware made that ending just to say, "Haha, take that, fuckwads!" If you have a grievance, by all means say so. But assuming that Bioware release a DLC to alter the ending, would it be so bad if they simply tied up the loose ends, provided closure and otherwise stuck to their guns?

Bioware an underdog? no...it makes them sellouts. And yes it would be bad as the ending still makes no sense. All three ending screens look alike. No real differences other then a few pose changes for the humans and a different color. It is not artistic it is lazy writing. The narrative falls apart at this point and shits on everything else up to it.

Ah, it's Neon Genesis Evangelion all over again. An incredible series with an ending that made its insanely devoted fanbase shit itself in frustration.

Uh, I agree with Dan. I really wish the ending provided more closure, but I like what it tried to do. If it had gone the predictable route, I think I actually would've been pretty disappointed. Risk is exciting, even if you fall on your face. And look at the fascinating conversation it created in the gaming community.

And like Dan said, I hope they don't try to completely alter the ending. One, because of the whole "caving into the pressure and changing what you were trying to say blah blah art." I'm in a creative line of work, too, so I understand how crappy it is when someone says your art should be changed because they didn't like it. Providing closure and making the events actually make sense is cool, but keep the premise of it all the same.

Also, Neon Genesis tried to change its ending dramatically. It only made things even more batshit crazy. I don't want that to happen to Mass Effect.